1. Blind Spot: Directed by Adolfo Doring, Released 2008
2. The focus of this film is on peak oil. Peak oil is the concept that at some point, we will (or already have) reached the maximum oil production after which oil production will decrease. This is a huge problem because oil is such a major factor in the world economy. It takes some part in almost all manufacturing and is even vitally important for modern agriculture. However, other sources of energy exist. The problem is that the oil industry is such a powerful force in the economy that many governments are denying or ignoring the problem. President Carter stated that we would experience an oil peak, and his speech was countered by Senate majority leader (of the time) Baker, who stated that the U.S. could produce its way (using more oil!) out of any problem. As will be discussed further below, oil causes many problems for the world.
3. The first and most obvious sustainability issue teased out by the film is that of the economy. The economy is heavily drenched in the affairs of the oil industry. Everything in our homes and almost all of industry has been shaped in some way by oil, either as a power source or as the precursor to the materials from which it is made (plastics and fertilizers for example). Because of this, the oil industry has, and unceasingly wields a huge amount of power not only in the economy, but also in government affairs around the world, especially in the United States. That is the root of the political issues revolving around oil. The oil industry is able to lobby congress like no other industry and gets special privilege. It gets subsidies, low tax rates on gasoline, and other benefits that keep the oil pumping when it is clear that this overuse is going to cause problems in the future, and possibly the near future. One thing that has to happen that the oil industry is desperately blocking is the development of new energy sources and associated technologies. However this is not the only part of the solution to the oil problem. Consumption in general, of oil and otherwise, needs to fall, and this is a cultural and educational problem. People need to be educated about the problems with consumerism and the way that our current practices are unsustainable. Additionally, they need to understand why sustainability is such an important issue. I think many people do not understand that it will come down to a life or death situation for many if not most or all people some day. Culturally we need to split from an age of consumerism to an age of efficiency, conservation, and non-materialism. Another minor but interesting and important point mentioned in the film regards the media. Because advertisers are looking for returns, the big businesses, which rely on oil, are not going to advertise on channels, stations, etc. that mention peak oil, because it could hurt their business. As such, such programs do not find their way onto the television, radio, etc. very easily.
4. One of the most compelling discussions in this film was the idea that before oil, we only had whatever energy was hitting the planet from the sun to work with on a daily basis. With the discovery of oil and its many uses, especially as a fuel, we have been able to use more energy than the sun is providing by drawing on the “ancient battery” of oil deposits. This fueled an explosion of human growth and development that now relies on that battery. When it is discharged, if something does not change soon, we will have widespread disaster. While this battery can technically recharge, we are destroying the lands which would recharge it (largely wetlands and the like) and it takes millions of years to charge while current projections say that it will be effectively discharged at most in another hundred years, but likely less, for a grand total of roughly 200 years of use. This is clearly much smaller than the several millions of years required to produce it, and oil is clearly not a sustainable energy source.
5. If I had to pick something that was least compelling (the film was pretty convincing on a whole) I would choose the demonization of politicians. I feel that government is a similar case to corporations (see <The Corporation>) in that the system is set up in such a way that it is no wonder that policy is chosen largely by lobbying. Lobbyists are largely the source of information for politicians and that is the information they have to go by. Well funded research looks a lot more compelling to a politician than community speculation, even if the study is funded by relevant industry. So demonizing politicians is not the way to go. Our political system needs to be changed to encourage them to do what we would like them to do (what voting is supposed to do, but clearly does not).
6. The argument that sparked the most interest in my mind and made me want to do further research was the idea that rising oil prices (above the rise of inflation) were causing real wages to fall for most laborers. The argument is that while it raises the price of all goods and such, the workers do not make more money from their more costly goods because they cost the company more to produce. However, since the workers still need to buy the same, now more expensive, things, they lose money, even if their wages have gone up, because overall they need to spend more to survive than the increase in their wages. What I would like to study is the economics behind real wages and try to piece together all the factors that determine whether workers are losing money with rising oil prices or not.
7. This film is appropriate for most audiences. Like many of the films we have watched, it has aspects that are simple and will help the less knowledgeable viewers gain an understanding of the sustainability issues the world is facing regarding political and economic aspects. However, for the more knowledgeable viewer, this film contains an intricate enough set of considerations to develop a larger sense of the problem. The way that companies the and government are intertwined and the way oil is present in almost every industry are aspects that can be useful to all sets of viewers trying to develop a more sophisticated sense of the problems. Additionally, this film advocates quite well for the reduction of oil as a major resource. As such, I feel that it may be able to convince viewers to reduce their consumption of oil in the form of gasoline and products in general, and may push some people to lobby their government officials to reduce the power of the oil companies and to lead the nation towards renewable energy.
8. As mentioned above, the film advocates for a reduction of oil as a major resource and the change to renewable forms of energy. It is not specific about which technologies should be pursued, but it makes it clear that biofuels are energy negative and otherwise a horrendous choice of “renewable” technology. As such, the film effectively advocates for wind, solar, tidal, etc. forms of power generation. Additionally, it advocates for the deterioration of consumerism implicitly. Furthermore, it describes the problems of government in such a way as to suggest that something might be put in place to try and reduce or eliminate big corporate lobbying.
9. To make this film more suitable for educational purposes, it may have included more opposing arguments for the other side. The film did a little bit of preaching that could have been curtailed. By bringing in opposing arguments, it makes for better educational dialogue. Also, it could be more specific in which solutions it does advocate instead of just which one(s) it does not, could be helpful.
Blind Spot
An annotation by Evan Beauvilliers1. Blind Spot: Directed by Adolfo Doring, Released 2008
2. The focus of this film is on peak oil. Peak oil is the concept that at some point, we will (or already have) reached the maximum oil production after which oil production will decrease. This is a huge problem because oil is such a major factor in the world economy. It takes some part in almost all manufacturing and is even vitally important for modern agriculture. However, other sources of energy exist. The problem is that the oil industry is such a powerful force in the economy that many governments are denying or ignoring the problem. President Carter stated that we would experience an oil peak, and his speech was countered by Senate majority leader (of the time) Baker, who stated that the U.S. could produce its way (using more oil!) out of any problem. As will be discussed further below, oil causes many problems for the world.
3. The first and most obvious sustainability issue teased out by the film is that of the economy. The economy is heavily drenched in the affairs of the oil industry. Everything in our homes and almost all of industry has been shaped in some way by oil, either as a power source or as the precursor to the materials from which it is made (plastics and fertilizers for example). Because of this, the oil industry has, and unceasingly wields a huge amount of power not only in the economy, but also in government affairs around the world, especially in the United States. That is the root of the political issues revolving around oil. The oil industry is able to lobby congress like no other industry and gets special privilege. It gets subsidies, low tax rates on gasoline, and other benefits that keep the oil pumping when it is clear that this overuse is going to cause problems in the future, and possibly the near future. One thing that has to happen that the oil industry is desperately blocking is the development of new energy sources and associated technologies. However this is not the only part of the solution to the oil problem. Consumption in general, of oil and otherwise, needs to fall, and this is a cultural and educational problem. People need to be educated about the problems with consumerism and the way that our current practices are unsustainable. Additionally, they need to understand why sustainability is such an important issue. I think many people do not understand that it will come down to a life or death situation for many if not most or all people some day. Culturally we need to split from an age of consumerism to an age of efficiency, conservation, and non-materialism. Another minor but interesting and important point mentioned in the film regards the media. Because advertisers are looking for returns, the big businesses, which rely on oil, are not going to advertise on channels, stations, etc. that mention peak oil, because it could hurt their business. As such, such programs do not find their way onto the television, radio, etc. very easily.
4. One of the most compelling discussions in this film was the idea that before oil, we only had whatever energy was hitting the planet from the sun to work with on a daily basis. With the discovery of oil and its many uses, especially as a fuel, we have been able to use more energy than the sun is providing by drawing on the “ancient battery” of oil deposits. This fueled an explosion of human growth and development that now relies on that battery. When it is discharged, if something does not change soon, we will have widespread disaster. While this battery can technically recharge, we are destroying the lands which would recharge it (largely wetlands and the like) and it takes millions of years to charge while current projections say that it will be effectively discharged at most in another hundred years, but likely less, for a grand total of roughly 200 years of use. This is clearly much smaller than the several millions of years required to produce it, and oil is clearly not a sustainable energy source.
5. If I had to pick something that was least compelling (the film was pretty convincing on a whole) I would choose the demonization of politicians. I feel that government is a similar case to corporations (see <The Corporation>) in that the system is set up in such a way that it is no wonder that policy is chosen largely by lobbying. Lobbyists are largely the source of information for politicians and that is the information they have to go by. Well funded research looks a lot more compelling to a politician than community speculation, even if the study is funded by relevant industry. So demonizing politicians is not the way to go. Our political system needs to be changed to encourage them to do what we would like them to do (what voting is supposed to do, but clearly does not).
6. The argument that sparked the most interest in my mind and made me want to do further research was the idea that rising oil prices (above the rise of inflation) were causing real wages to fall for most laborers. The argument is that while it raises the price of all goods and such, the workers do not make more money from their more costly goods because they cost the company more to produce. However, since the workers still need to buy the same, now more expensive, things, they lose money, even if their wages have gone up, because overall they need to spend more to survive than the increase in their wages. What I would like to study is the economics behind real wages and try to piece together all the factors that determine whether workers are losing money with rising oil prices or not.
7. This film is appropriate for most audiences. Like many of the films we have watched, it has aspects that are simple and will help the less knowledgeable viewers gain an understanding of the sustainability issues the world is facing regarding political and economic aspects. However, for the more knowledgeable viewer, this film contains an intricate enough set of considerations to develop a larger sense of the problem. The way that companies the and government are intertwined and the way oil is present in almost every industry are aspects that can be useful to all sets of viewers trying to develop a more sophisticated sense of the problems. Additionally, this film advocates quite well for the reduction of oil as a major resource. As such, I feel that it may be able to convince viewers to reduce their consumption of oil in the form of gasoline and products in general, and may push some people to lobby their government officials to reduce the power of the oil companies and to lead the nation towards renewable energy.
8. As mentioned above, the film advocates for a reduction of oil as a major resource and the change to renewable forms of energy. It is not specific about which technologies should be pursued, but it makes it clear that biofuels are energy negative and otherwise a horrendous choice of “renewable” technology. As such, the film effectively advocates for wind, solar, tidal, etc. forms of power generation. Additionally, it advocates for the deterioration of consumerism implicitly. Furthermore, it describes the problems of government in such a way as to suggest that something might be put in place to try and reduce or eliminate big corporate lobbying.
9. To make this film more suitable for educational purposes, it may have included more opposing arguments for the other side. The film did a little bit of preaching that could have been curtailed. By bringing in opposing arguments, it makes for better educational dialogue. Also, it could be more specific in which solutions it does advocate instead of just which one(s) it does not, could be helpful.